


Concordance

by Kyele



Series: heirsverse [2]
Category: The Musketeers (2014), d'Artagnan Romances (Three Musketeers Series) - All Media Types
Genre: Gen
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2015-08-28
Updated: 2015-10-29
Packaged: 2018-04-17 14:44:08
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 18
Words: 17,950
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/4670579
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Kyele/pseuds/Kyele
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>Background info about the universe of <a href="http://archiveofourown.org/works/2718833"><i>ye heirs of glory</i></a>, crossposted from the DVD commentary on <a href="timeforalongstory.tumblr.com">my tumblr</a>.</p>
            </blockquote>





	1. History of the Inquisition

**Author's Note:**

> Generally presented Q&A style, since my writing down any of this was usually prompted by a reader question. I'll group answers in chapters by rough topic area. 
> 
> In general this material is less triggering than that covered in _heirs_ , but the tags all may apply, so please read carefully. If you were okay with _heirs_ , you'll be okay here.
> 
> Marked complete because it's currently up to date. However [my askbox](http://timeforalongstory.tumblr.com/ask) is still open for any and all questions - and you can ask them in the comments here, as well!

**Q:** _So I was wondering whether other countries already threw the Inquisition down or is France a first? And why some countries resisted its establishment? Do you think other countries will follow?_

France is the first country that was wholly occupied by the Inquisition to then turn around and dispel it. Roughly speaking, the Inquisition parallels both its RL equivalent’s spread and roughly corresponds to how Catholic a country was at the time of its inception. Countries that didn’t accept or are fighting the Inquisition roughly parallel Protestant or other non-Roman Catholic states. 

(tw: oppression, othering, phobia, the in-universe equivalent of anti-semitism, christianity at some of its worst; the blogger does not endorse these views)

Starting from RL history, the medieval Inquisition got started in the 13th century ([wikipedia link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda)), but was largely confined to Rome and much narrower in scope. It got its first major boost via the Protestant Reformation in the 15th century. One of the things the Protestants protested against was the increasing veneration of Mary by the Catholic church. In _heirs_ verse, Mary is associated with Betas, being herself a Beta and the mother of Jesus, another Beta, who balanced out the sexes in the Trinity and opened up salvation to the Betas. (The Jews, to whom God’s contract had previously been restricted, were in this universe throwbacks. Or rather, “the people of the blood”, aka “blooded”, “pureblooded” or “pure”; the term “throwback” is itself a racial slur.) The increased visibility of Mary had been the result of the increased participation of Betas in the church and their growing awareness of themselves as full members of the Christian covenant. Mary in her Catholic role of intercessor was a sanctified way for Betas to interact with God. She was also associated with an early Beta’s rights movement and an attempt on the part of Betas and liberal blooded (throwbacks) to rectify the societal injustices faced by Betas (which were very real).

Other blooded were alarmed by this and branded the veneration of Mary as idol-worship and not properly Christian, insisting that good Christian Betas would be subordinate to purebloods. (Oooh, it’s been a while since I got to rewrite Paul the Apostle: _In like manner also, that Betas adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh Betas professing godliness) with good works. Let the Beta learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a Beta to teach, nor to usurp authority over the pure, but to be in silence._ )

So to begin with, the Protestant countries were actually the _less_ pureblood-friendly countries. But then there was Spain. Or rather proto-Spain. In the 1400s, having reconquered the territory from Islamic control, they’re trying to put a society back together. The time spent being conquered had effectively uprooted the entrenched systems of pro-purity privilege and oppression. Many proto-Spanish Betas hated “throwbacks” for having failed in to protect their ancestors and family from the Moors during the invasion (as would have been their hereditary feudal duty). All of the evils of having been conquered and oppressed were laid at the throwbacks’ doorsteps. It started with pogroms but didn’t end there, and when Isabella and Ferdinand unified Spain, they co-opted the Roman Inquisition as the Spanish Inquisition - its second major boost. They declared that the Protestants, by downplaying Mary and Jesus, were not Christians. Similarly, the throwbacks (Jews), by having “killed Jesus”, had refused the new covenant and were not Christians by their blood. Therefore, they should all be converted (sterilized) or put to death. The Inquisition then spreads more out of Spain than Rome, and to begin with Rome is more the one hanging onto the runaway tiger for dear life than the one leading the charge. But by the time ye heirs of glory is set there isn’t much of a difference between them; Spaniards are generally viewed to be the first among Catholic equals, the holiest of all countries, and are disproportionately represented in Church councils - a self-fulfilling cycle that furthers the Inquisition’s power.

Spain was therefore the poster child for the Inquisition since its _heirs_ verse inception (circa late 1400s). Portugal joined in shortly thereafter (early 1500s). England, which had already had a long tradition of holding the Roman Church at arms’ length, instated the Church of England and rejected Roman and Inquisitorial control (1530s). (Spain attempted to show England the error of their ways via the Spanish Armada; it ended poorly for Spain. Later there will be a brief period of revolt - the English Civil War - when the English public suspects their rulers of being secret Catholics intending to instate the Inquisition; it doesn’t last.)

France started to adopt Inquisitiorial dictates in the early 1500s and was fully pulled under by the early 1600s; the siege of La Rochelle was the end of overt anti-Inquisition (Protestant) government in France, until Louis XIII’s New Proclamation. France withstood it as long as it did by having a history of religious tolerance, including the Edict of Nantes and Protestant members of the royal bloodline (Navarre), but the French Wars of Religion ended with Henry IV publically embracing the Inquisition in order to inherit the crown. He remained a sympathizer and resisted or delayed the imposition of Inquisition laws. Unfortunately, after his tragic assassination (cough *Inquisition* cough)  Marie de’ Medici finished the job during her regency. The rest of France’s story you know.

As for other countries:

  * Central and South America adopted the Inquisition, being mostly controlled at that point by Spain and Portugal. 
  * North America, similarly, followed England’s suit and rejected it. 
  * African and Indo-Asian colonies followed their parent nation. 
  * The Holy Roman Empire doesn’t properly exist in this universe, as it was torn apart by seceding provinces and differing levels of support for Rome. Different provinces went in different directions. The Dutch Republic/United Provinces went Inquisition, as did the rest of the Low Countries, while the proto-Germanic states descended into infighting. Rome or Spain would occasionally stick their nose in and throw money or support to one side or another, which would lead to an upswing of Inquisitorial piety, but it never lasted. 
  * Austria-Hungary was Inquisition. 
  * Bavaria was throwback; that’s where Andreas ended up settling and founding a Resistance branch that operated in that geographical area. 
  * Savoy is throwback, albeit precariously.
  * Moving east, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth experienced a long period of internal religious strife. They were basically the buffer zone between Rome and the rest of Eastern Europe. Officially they adopted many Inquisitorial laws, but it was generally safe enough to be a throwback as long as you paid the right taxes, had useful skills, and didn’t put yourself too far forward. 
  * Russia saw no advantage in the whole Inquisition business and deepened the separation of its Orthodox Church from Rome. Previously it was a technicality; it becomes a reality. Alfonse goes to Russia and ends up at the center of a thriving minority of throwbacks, which lasts until the pogroms of the late 19th and early 20th century forces them out again back West. 
  * The Ottoman Empire and other Islamic countries had no truck with the Inquisition and all interaction between they and Western (Christian) Europe was basically nonexistant for this period of history.
  * Same goes for any East Asian countries not politically or economically entwined with Western Europe. If they had a trade relationship, they’d often pay lip service to the Inquisition and set up buffer zones around ports or caravan routes, but maintained their own laws when the Europeans weren’t looking, whatever those laws might have been.
  * Non-Western European nations that weren’t under western European control continued to follow their own native traditions, whatever they might have been.



Getting _rid_ of the Inquisition happens almost in reverse. France throwing the Inquisition out is a shock to Spain and Rome and ends up triggering this universe’s version of the Thirty Years’ War. Various countries line up on either side, and the eventual victory of this universe’s France/England alliance shakes up the Inquisition’s power. Austria comes out of it more Inquisition than ever, but Portugal revolts against the Inquisition and win the Portuguese Restoration War, which France assisted them with (Franco-Spanish war). This leads into a period where the politics and economics of the region are heavily controlled by said French/English alliance and many smaller states repudiate the Inquisition in order to remain economically viable. 

Colonies are stuck with their parent state’s religion until they win their freedoms, which happens rapidly during this period. The breakup of the Inquisition hastens the breakdown of colonialism, since any Inquisition state’s colony can appeal for aid to France or England by promising to restore the rights of throwbacks upon gaining their freedom. And, if they follow through on it, France and England open trade with them, which means that post-colonial states generally experience superior outcomes in the immediate post-colonial period in this universe as compared to our universe.

Spain is the last to formally repudiate the Inquisition, in the mid-1800s. Rome, even more completely under Spanish control by that point, promptly does likewise. The Catholic church never quite regains its former power and dominance. Many smaller nations do return to claiming association with the Catholic church, because running your own state religion is a headache, and once you weed out the anti-throwback and anti-Beta junk they share common principles. But the larger nations (England, France, Russia) never return.

As nations renounce the Inquisition, they sign various alliances with other nations, and this leads to the complex web of alliances as it exists at the end of the 1800s, setting the stage for the first World War. Western history of the 20th century basically jumps back onto the tracks of its RL counterpart and it’s generally safe to assume that you end up with the world as it exists today, except with more sexes and genders.


	2. History of the Inquisition

[Question:](http://archiveofourown.org/comments/22119398) _So, I get how alpha males and omaga males are made anatomically, and I guess that beta male/female are similar to real humans and I can imagine that omaga female are the same but with the heat systme, but I really do not manage to get how alpha females are made!! And also, are males mates only able to have male pups, which would make sense in a XY sex system. I know, weird question but I’m really not familiar with the A/B/O universe!_

Generally I’m imagining it as if sex and gender are two separate (but interlinked) combinations of genes. So Alpha/Omega are one set and male/female are another set. The ‘Beta’ gene isn’t even be a gene at all; it’s just the absence of an Alpha/Omega gene, if that’s possible (again: not a biologist). Gender genes start expressing first in utero, so the fetus begins to develop male/female. Then the sex gene kicks in (if appropriate) and switches the development track to Alpha or Omega if appropriate. Similarly to the way the Y chromosone hijacks female development and turns it male. So development sort of runs: female -> male gene present y/n? -> throwback gene present y/n?, with the latest gene to express being dominant in terms of development.

D'Artagnan being born an Omega to Beta parents is REALLY unusual. Homogenous Beta couples should only have Beta children. However, it’s possible for one or both parents to carry a throwback gene without having had it express. The throwback gene is recessive-ish (there are a lot of other factors in play) so the farther one gets from one’s throwback ancestors() the less likely the gene is to express. However, if two Betas both have some throwback ancestry, depending on how the dice roll they may randomly hit the combination of genes for a throwback pup.

In most cases a weak throwback gene simply doesn’t activate and a child is born as a typically developed Beta who just happens to have a spare bit of junk in their genetic code - no ill effects. However, this can also be the cause of some genetic disorders. D'Artagnan’s mother, in particular, is not (unbeknownst to anyone) a genetic Beta. She’s got a genetic condition where her over-aggressive X chromosome improperly suppressed her throwback gene (Omega), resulting in her appearing to be born, in that age before genetic testing, as a female Beta. D'Artagnan is alive thanks to inheriting the precise combination of a Y chromosome from his father (who actually IS a genetic Beta male) and the Omegan gene from his mother/carrier. The two appearing together force the X chromosome into regressive mode. All the other combinations are inviable due to the flaw in the maternal X (hence: six miscarriages).

…probably an actual mammal would collapse and die under the weight of my hand-waving right now, but this is an AU, so let’s pretend it works!

As for combinations of offspring: technically an Alpha female/Omega female combination couldn’t produce male offspring (no Y chromosome). Alpha/Omega pairs also won’t produce Betan offspring as long as they haven’t any Beta heredity. If there ARE Betas in the family tree, however, the throwback gene is weakened. The first Beta will have almost no effect, but eventually the gene will get too weak to express and you’ll get Beta offspring - even from A/O parents. This is one of the many reasons the pure lines in Europe were so particular about proving heredity (and why Aramis talks specifically about his line being Alphas and Omegas mating in an unbroken line back to the time of Christ).

Male Beta/Female Beta ought to only produce Betan offspring, though there are a few improbable cases that produce throwbacks (as in d'Artagnan’s case).

Gender-wise, Male Alpha/Male Omega could theoretically produce a YY offspring, but it isn’t genetically viable. That particular pairing is also twice as likely to produce male-gendered offspring as female (25% XX, 25% XY, 25% YX, and 25% miscarried YY).

Finally, male Alpha/female Omega, female Alpha/male Omega, and male Alpha/male Omega (as above) can reproduce any gender of throwback and, if they have some Beta heredity, any gender of Beta.

The last thing to keep in mind is that gender plays a much smaller role in throwback mate selection than this conversation makes it sound. As in, practically none. Before the Inquisition sex, not gender, was the primary consideration. An A/O pair can produce A/O offspring; the gender of those offspring was generally not considered relevant, since the assumption was they’d mate with other A/Os and produce A/O babies and so on and so forth. No one cared that Alpha female/Omega female would only produce female pups. They’d produce Alphas and Omegas, which is all that mattered. Throwbacks are interfertile with Betas (Alpha/female Beta or male Beta/Omega), but social stigma was against it (consider it the homosexuality of its time). For that matter it still is, just in the other direction. So no one really cared about whether they could produce the full range of offspring either.

* * *

 

**Question** : _…would it be too awkward to start with asking about female Alphas? I’m still a little hazy on how that works, anatomy-wise._

Anatomy-wise, Alpha women have a fully functional penis and testicles. Tucked behind those is a short, vestigal vagina that connects to nothing. (And a rectum for waste elimination). As with Betas, there’s one set of stem cells that differentiates between clitoris/penis developmentally and another set that differentiates between ovaries/testes. Female Alphas get penis and testes, identically to male Alphas and Beta males (although Beta males don’t get a knot; that’s linked off the throwback gene).

For Betas, since the throwback gene is absent, the gender gene (XX/XY) dictates how those reproductive systems develop. For throwbacks, the throwback gene (sex gene) dictates it. However (going back to this comment), the sex gene kicks in later in the cycle than the gender gene, so certain initial developmental effects occur based on the gender gene. This is why throwbacks have gender at all and why there’s any difference between a female and a male Alpha. In a male Alpha, most things kicked off by the gender gene are reinforced by the sex gene, which makes it easy for “aligned” throwbacks to pass (just about the only external physical difference is the knot, which is why the first thing the Inquisition did in Wissous to screen d’Artagnan is check for a knot, and why Rochefort is fixated on whether or not Richelieu has a knot in the palace scene). In a female Alpha, certain things begin happening in anticipation of a carrier gene kicking in before the sire gene hijacks matters. The vaginal opening forms (though it will never connect to anything) and the genes for subsequent mammary tissue development are also ignited, such that Alpha females may grow small breasts during puberty. Certain genes related to hair growth turn off, so Alpha females don’t grow facial hair.

In terms of bone structure and proportion, there isn’t much difference between the sexes. Alphas are fairly similar to Beta males, and Omegas are fairly similar to Beta females (evolutionarily there are just golden ratios for sires and carriers that apply regardless of which branch your genetics follow). This is just another of the many issues that “unaligned” throwbacks face in trying to pass; Alpha females have to tailor their clothing and posture to give the impression of bigger breasts, smaller shoulders and wider hips. Adele, under her clothes and makeup, has an almost identical build to Athos. Aramis and Charlotte could share clothes. Thomas was able to exploit his carrier body type to pass as Beta female before he undressed in front of the wrong Beta.

There _is_ a slight difference between male and female Alphas because of their slightly divergent development paths; male Alphas favor upper-body strength and bursts over short periods, whereas female Alphas favor whole-body strength and sustained effort over time or distance. They have similar endocrine systems for adrenaline production, similar lung and heart capacity, and similar dead lift thresholds. 

(Digression: In real life, males HAVE all of the necessary tissue to lactate, it just doesn’t get turned on during puberty, and there are accounts of some peoples in remote parts of the world where older males who are past hunting/agriculture nurse babies as their contribution to the community. The external addition of visible breast tissue is thought to be an evolutionary conceit that says _hey, look at me, I’m ready to breed._ In this universe, Betas are the ones to develop that trait, and pass it to throwbacks through later interbreeding. Pureblood Alpha females will actually _not_ grow extra breast tissue; Adele d’Herblay, when storming the Bastille and needing to dress as a (male) soldier, simply removed the padding from her chest. Charlotte had to bind her breasts. This is also why male Omegas don’t grow breasts; the trigger is in neither their sex nor their gender genetic code.)


	3. Throwback Biology

**Q:** _when does an Omega usually go through their first heat?  
_

An Omega having their first heat is roughly equivalent to a Beta woman having their first period (menarche). As in the real world, factors like nutrition and disease play a role, so nobles generally have their first period/heat sooner than the merchant class, who have it sooner than peasants. (Another reason for the obsession with heredity in ancient times!) In addition, for throwbacks, purity of blood matters. More specifically, the presence or absence of Betan heredity. The throwback gene is last to express during genetic development (see this discussion) and it’s similarly delayed during puberty. If a throwback has a Beta gene, puberty will actually kick off with gender-specific traits: this is why male Omegas grow facial hair and female Alphas grow (usually very small) breasts. Then the throwback gene will engage and kick off sex-specific puberty.

(Fun fact: this is one reason male Betas have a general preference for large-breasted Beta woman; breast size is an evolutionary proxy for sexual compatibility. Betas and throwbacks developed as separate species originally so these kind of cues encouraged them to mate within their own species. Obviously they weren’t completely successful; most people have some mixed heritage, even if it’s very remote.)

All of which is a very long-winded way of saying that an Omega can have their first heat anywhere from eleven (astonishingly young, very pureblooded, bordering inbred) to eighteen (extremely late, probably very muddy bloodline, probably genetic issues). Aramis had his at twelve; Treville was fourteen or fifteen (average; his heredity’s not as bad as he fears); d'Artagnan was seventeen.

* * *

  **Q:** _So, the Alpha Omega sex/heat thing is an intricate blance of hormones that works like a finely tuned instrument on both of them. Now, for science I need to know how this balance adjusts for a Beta/Alpha relationship… We DO know that Omega heat hormones work on Betas too (Beta males? since they would be the actual equivalent with the according hormones? Testosterone?)_  
  
_Now, Alphas give of pheromones of their own, but they happen in response to the Omega’s hormone, so, would that happen?_  
  
_I know that women have something similar, albeit much weaker and more subconcious, like mating heat, let me guess, it would have a similar, while weaker effect on Alphas?_  
  
_Mating, Omega/Alpha exclusive? What would happen, if a Beta bit an Omega mating gland? Nothing, I guess. Since an Alphas mating response is triggered by the Omega hormones during the bite, nothing would happen, if an Alpha bit a Beta? Right? Or is there a weaker version of mating hormones, based singularly on the Alphas part of the hormonal balance?_

Omega heat hormones work on Beta males too. Betas have a less potent experience of them physically - they are missing a few of the olfactory receptors, so they don’t get the full effect, and the wiring between the olfactory nerves and the reproductive system is less direct. But there’s a huge societal ideation surrounding Omegas in heat, so Betas get a bigger psychological effect than Alphas do. Psychologically, think of it as the difference between a pubescent straight boy seeing boobs for the first time (Beta male) versus an adult straight male watching his wife strip (Alpha).  
  
In heat, Alpha pheromones key off of Omega pheromones, so an Alpha married to a Beta would simply never give off those particular pheromones - the Alpha would never emit a heat scent. The Alpha would give off the usual range of pheromones associated with lust, arousal, mating, siring young, etc. Those aren’t dependent on particular Omegan pheromones. With an Alpha and a Beta woman, the Alpha may experience heat-related effects during the fertile part of the Betan menstrual cycle, though to a reduced degree.  
  
Mating, yes, technically, is Alpha/Omega exclusive. If you’re being strictly precise, Betas marry but not mate (and throwbacks mate but not marry). Technically the term ‘husband’ belongs only to Beta men and the term 'wife’ only to Beta women. A throwback would call their Beta female spouse their wife or their Beta male spouse their husband; the Beta would call their Alpha or Omega spouse their mate.  
  
That being said, no one sticks to that strictly anymore (except possibly the Inquisition) and a strict insistence on using those terms would be kinda racist. Modern throwbacks commonly have both ceremonies (as Treville and Richelieu did) and a throwback in a relationship with a Beta would commonly refer to that Beta as their mate as well as their husband/wife, and a Beta would say husband/wife for their mate as well. These terms have meaning in their respective societies, and a throwback calling their Beta spouse their mate would be a way of acculturating that spouse. Similarly, a Beta calling their throwback mate their husband/wife gives them standing and legitimacy in Betan culture as well.  
  
Biologically speaking, if there’s no mating bond in a pairing, there’s no mating and no biological effects. Beta women have no mating gland, so, biologically, they and their spouse (whatever sex/gender) are not mated and the biological effects simply don’t occur. Beta women have no analogue to the Omegan effects of mating. They remain fertile with any sire even after marriage (one of the things that historically let Betas keep up with throwbacks in terms of birth rate), there’s no empathetic bond, no physical advantages, etc. If a Beta (of any gender) spends a lot of time with a throwback mate, they’ll gain the same pack-bonding effects as an unmated throwback joining the pack. In the old days - before the Inquisiton - Beta women who mated with an Alpha would sometimes get a mating bite tattooed on their shoulder as the equivalent of a wedding ring. I could imagine that tradition being revived in certain privileged cultures post-Inquisition, as well as being adopted by same-sex throwback couples to express pride in both identity (throwback) and sexual preference.  
  
Non-reproductive matches - i.e. Alpha/Alpha - were viewed comparably with how homosexual matches were viewed in non-AU history. With the added twist that a society’s views in non-reproductive matches might be distinct from their veiws on interspecial matches. For example, a society may be accepting of Alpha/Alpha but reject Alpha/Beta female (some Greek cities held this attitude). Similarly, a society might have accepted Alpha/Beta female but rejected Alpha/Alpha (as in the Ottoman Empire). You might even have socieities that accept Alpha/Alpha and Omega/Omega (because throwbacks can do whatever they want), also accept Alpha/Beta female and Beta male/Omega (because reproduction is valued), and yet reject Alpha/Beta male and Beta female/Omega (because the interbreeding prejudice was not overcome in those instances by the presence of offpsring). If there’s one thing that’s true about humans through history is that’s we’re really good at hating things, so just about any combination you can imagine was probably the standard in some society at some point in time.  
  
Back to biology. In a Beta male/Omega bond, the Beta male can bite the bonding gland, and it’s not harmful, but the effects are reduced. The Beta male has no mating-related triggers in the endocrine system, so all they did was bite someone and swallow a mouthful of blood; they may feel briefly odd, and a little intoxicated, but there are no lasting effects. The Omega’s system is somewhat sensitized by having taken the bite, but there aren’t enough of the right hormones in the Beta male’s blood for the bond to fully take. The Omega would reject another - the fertility lock works - but the empathetic bond and the knotting-related markers that end heat early don’t take.  
  
An Omega in this position is vulnerable, and since the bond is incomplete, it’s susceptible to being overriden by a more biologically compatible bond. In much the same way that lesbians have been subjected to 'corrective rape’ in our society’s history, Omegas who bonded with Beta males in antiquity would sometimes be subjected to a 'corrective bond’ with an Alpha. The Alpha’s bite would attempt to impose a biologically complete bond over the existing incomplete one. The two competing claims would then essentially fight it out in the Omega’s body. Most often the Omega died. If the Omega did survive, most often the Alpha’s bite would 'win’ (because biology) and they’d be bound to their new Alpha. Very, very rarely the Beta would 'win’, and usually the Beta and the Omega would just be put to death in that case.  
  
Finally, a Beta woman may attempt to mate with an Omega but it just doesn’t take. The biological influences at work are evolved to promote fertility and the bonding mechanism doesn’t activate without the presence of a sire.

* * *

 

 **Q:** _Say an Omega's mate-bond breaks, but later on, the Omega ends up with another mate. Can their new mate still bite them to bond with them? Will the scar from the old mate bond still be there? Does that have any effect on the new mating?_

Yes, they can absolutely mate again. Death breaks the bond, which also undoes the biological effects and leaves the Omega ready to mate again. This system was critical to the survival of the people of the blood (throwbacks) in ancient times (pre-Christ). With their carriers only fertile four times a year, missing out on a heat and a chance to reproduce was dangerous for the people’s ability to make up their numbers. This way, if an Omega’s mate is killed, the Omega can be mated again and bred in time for their next heat.

The scar from the old bite remains, but it changes color. While an Omega’s mate is alive the scar is blood-colored, reflecting the blood bond that joins them. When an Omega’s mate dies it becomes flesh-colored like any other old scar. The new bite would need to be placed in a different location (not overlapping the old scar), but other than that there’s no issue. And the gland is more than wide enough to accommodate multiple bites. In ancient times, especially in a time of war, it wasn’t uncommon for an Omega to have three or four mates over the course of their life.


	4. Scents

**Q:** _I was wondering about the scent of throwbacks... Is there a rule or something, like 2 elements, one living one inert? Is it different for Alpha and Omega? Can you know one's sex from their scent? Thanks!_

There’s not really a rule like “2 elements” or “one natural thing and one man-made” though I try to pick combinations that are distinctive and reflect a person’s core. They’re mainly naturally occuring scents, but simple chemical reactions like woodsmoke also appear. I stretched it a little in Treville’s case - Richelieu reads his smell as including cordite, but it’s really sulfur and charcoal. So some of reading scents is in the mind of the reader. If the _reader_ expects everyone’s scent to work according to rule, that’s what they’ll experience. 

You _can_ tell sex from scent, the more easily so the purer the bloodline is. An Alpha’s scent will be spicy and and an Omega’s will be sweet. Note that I’m using that term mainly in its original meaning of ‘fresh’. It’s particularly sweet in the runup to heat, though during heat it actually turns spicy, which is a way of repelling unwelcome Alphas.

When Athos and Aramis wrestle, Athos catches Aramis’ scent and knows right away Aramis is an Omega. There are several other instances in _heirs_ where a character identifies someone's sex from their scent. When d’Artagnan gets a whiff of the woman in the blue cloak in Wissous and she smells spicy to him, that’s a clue that she’s Adele instead of Charlotte. Treville’s sweet element is meadow hay. Charlotte’s is rain.  Athos’ spicy element is wood smoke. 

As with most things, interbreeding weakens the effect. D’Artagnan’s sweet element is supposed to be fresh herbs, but it’s largely obscured by rich earth, which is a Betan scent. Athos can still pick up some herbal scent thanks to his superior sense of smell, but Treville, for example, would never notice it. 

Mates exchange elements of each others’ scents, so you can tell someone is mated, but not so strongly that you still can’t tell who is whom. A pup can tell their parents apart, for example (though its parents needn’t have been mated to conceive). There are common scents in bloodlines, and found packs and clans will often end up with some common element or theme over time. 

* * *

**Q:** _What kind of things can throwbacks tell about each other from their scent? does 'distress' refer just to an omega experiencing difficulties during heat, or is it a more general thing e.g. if they were injured?_

Distress specifically refers to heat difficulties. What throwbacks can tell from each other from their scent varies depending on a couple of factors, primarily how close the relationship is between the throwbacks and purity of blood (strength of sense of smell). There’s roughly three categories:

First is a universal category, meaning just about any throwback can read it in any other throwback’s scent regardless of affinity or strength of smell. Distress (meaning heat specifically), extreme anger (meaning an enraged Alpha) or fear, aggression (usually territorial). There’s also the ability to project a general level of strength; posturing relies a lot on this band. Finally, sex (Alpha/Omega) is also almost always scentable, though in truly muddy bloodlines it can be harder to pick out. (Note that this is only true in cases where care is not being taken to conceal sex: if you start adding perfumes in the mix, throwbacks like d’Artagnan fall off pretty quickly.)

Second is a middling category. To read stuff in this category a throwback has to EITHER have fairly pure blood (probably up to about 20% Betan ancestry) OR be close with the throwback in question (same clan). Strong emotion starts to come through - or rather, _primal_ emotions (anger, lust, satisfaction, greed, etc). Proximity and direction can be assessed. So can general health - not “he has a fracture of the third metatarsal” but “something’s wrong with his foot; he’s limping”.

Third is an intimate category. This is reserved for parents of young pups or mates. Here’s where you get the finer-grained stuff. Not just emotion but an almost empathetic bond. Mates can sense fine gradiations of emotions, though usually they also have some ability to shield from each other. It doesn’t *quite* bridge to full-on communication, but emotional cues can substitute for meaning if arranged in advance. There’s also some ability to share vitality (strength, fortitude, endurance) over the mate-bond.

Parents can sense when their pups are hungry, tired, ill, in danger, and they get to experience the raw emotions of the very young. As pups grow, they learn to understand and filter their emotions, and as they do so their bond with their parents gradually fades. If it’s not gone by puberty, puberty ends it. How fast the bond fades depends on a lot of factors, including age, how close parent and offspring are otherwise, and as always, bloodline. To give some examples: Porthos and his carrier retained their bond until Porthos hit puberty: purebloods who maintained strong emotional bonds. Porthos had no bond wiht his sire, though, since his sire was seperated from him basically right after conception. Aramis, Adele and Richelieu lost their bonds with their respective parents in toddlerhood as the elder d'Herblays and Richelieus started teaching their pups to adopt a closed-off lifestyle. D'Artagnan and Treville never formed a bond with their respective parents, since they were all Betas. Athos loses his bond with his sire around the time Thomas is born, but keeps his with his carrier until a few years before puberty. Charlotte’s bonds were fading with the onset of puberty when her parents were killed.


	5. Bloodlines and Purity in Throwback Clans

**Q:** _if marie de medici was considering elizabeth stuart for louis, does that mean that the english royal family weren't throwbacks? Or was she a beta member of a mainly throwback family? but if england had rejected the inquisition, wouldn't all the high nobles still be 'pure'?_

Elizabeth Stuart is the Beta child of a mainly throwback family. 

For a long time after the Inquisiton started gaining ground, there was a tradition of “swapping” children for pups back and forth between Inquisition and non-Inquisition countries. The belief was that pups would have a better life free of the Inquisition (yes) and that children would also have a better life in countries that were free of the throwback heirarchy (also yes). How this swap was conducted was, as most things in the world, a function of socioeconomic status (class). Poor people would swap babies because they were otherwise unable to provide a sheltered life for the less favored offspring, so the best thing they could do for even a young infant was give them up. 

Middle-class people would be able to raise children and pups more or less equally until early adolescence, at which point access to further education, apprenticeships or inherited businesses would start to be closed off to whichever group was less favored, so the swaps would tend to occur at that point and be cloaked under the guise of mercantile exchanges - i.e. “I’ll take your son on as an apprentice blacksmith if you’ll adopt my eve into your family and let her inherit the tavern”. These sort of swaps would have been routine even without the Inquisition; it was just that, all of a sudden, pups were only going one way and children only the other (mysterious, huh?). 

Nobles and other rich people would exchange offspring via marriage. Throwback offspring born to Beta lines would be mated to semipure lines in “safe” countries, and Beta children born to pure lines would be married to Beta nobility in Inquisition countries.

Now, a note on purity: Aramis’ bloodline (and Porthos’) are actually _really unusual_. Most “pure” lines were not 100% pure and unbroken since the time of Christ, even if they liked to pretend they were. Almost everyone had _some_ Betan heredity. In general, yes, the purer one’s blood, the higher one’s nobility. But being King isn’t actually, historically, about who’s on top of the noble heap. You get to be King by winning wars. And in the old, old days, when physical strength was the most important factor, being an Alpha was a strict advantage over being a Beta. But even in Greek and Roman times technology advanced to the point where an army of Betas could stand off an army of throwbacks if the tech imbalance was there. In France, for example, the Navarre bloodline was Betan. The “big countries” (France, England, Spain) were controlled by the people of the blood, but many smaller nation-states had prominent Betan families, and they would intermarry at times.

Also, as the Inquisition started to ascend to prominence and families started swapping offspring to protect them, the bloodlines of the noble families became murkier. Noble families like Aramis’ were able to remain pure, ironically, because they were in the earliest Inquisition-dominated country. Noble families with comparable bloodlines in other countries took in endangered throwbacks from other countries via marraige to protect them, and relaxed their standards of blood purity to do so. Of course, some particularly snobbish families refused to ‘corrupt’ their bloodlines in such a way, but the good ones were more concerned with saving lives than maintaining bloodlines. Countries like England have very few truly _pure_ purebloods left. One Beta per generation is no longer uncommon for even the noblest families. As Porthos says: the slave lines are purer than half the nobility in Europe. 

Marie de’ Medici was considering Elizabeth Stuart for Louis because she thought it might give France and the Inquisition an opening to break into England. Or, failing that, it would at least lower the likelihood of war with England, and might provide a political solution to the Protestant (pro-throwback) holdout cities still in France - offering those people safe passage to England as part of the marriage contract, etc. 

She eventually decided against it because she didn’t want to dilute the Bourbon bloodline further. How many pregnancies would Elizabeth have had to carry to live birth before she would produce a son? And what to do with the probable throwback pups would have been a major political headache. Killing them would probably start a war with England - and you better believe that England would have demanded to see the bodies of anyone France tried to pass off as “stillborn”. But discreetly sending them back to England would have caused problems domestically and with the Inquisition for contributing to the throwback threat. In the end Marie decided that the short-term advantages weren’t worth the long-term headaches for France. 


	6. Honorifics, Titles, Gender and Sex

A **question** came up today on chapter 15 of [_these three remain_](http://archiveofourown.org/works/3747583), which involves Simon (an Omega) being addressed by the term _Mademoiselle_. [kat2107](http://tmblr.co/mK6ogLws87U-rcJTtscDVOg) had written it, and then [eridaniepsilon](http://tmblr.co/mFqV82misdMqrGxWjxQSvSg) had asked whether the term was applicable, or whether it inappropriately conflated male Omegas and female Betas. 

The answer is that the term is applicable. There is _also_ some conflation going on, but it’s coming in the other direction: all of the titles and honorifics (like Mademoiselle, Madame, Comtesse, Duchesse, and so forth) originally evolved for and belonged to Omegas. Betas took ownership of those terms later, during the Inquisition. So, strictly speaking, what would be incorrect is for someone to address _Jeanne_ (a female Beta) by that term. But it’s like the terms _married_ and _mated._ According to their strict definitions, yes, Betas marry and throwbacks mate. But insisting on that would be kinda racist. Similarly, insisting on using terms like _mademoiselle_ according to their original definition (Omega-sexed individuals only) or their Inquisitorial definition (Female-gendered individuals only) is exclusionary and perpetuates systems of oppression in at least one direction. In a post-Inquisition world, Beta women will retain the use of the term, and Omegas will reclaim it. Languages never stop evolving, after all.

The characters of _heirs_ are speaking 17th-century French, which I’ve represented to the best of my ability as 21st-century English. The French they’re speaking started evolving into that form _before_ Inquisitorial influence was dominant in France, which means the language evolved in the context of a pro-throwback society and culture. Just as Modern English has strong patriarchal influences (‘man’ as a generic term, hu _man_ , _his_ tory, etc.), Renaissance French evolved as a language with strong _throwback_ influences. It further came from languages with strong throwback influences – Latin, Greek, German. Which means that the default assumption of the language is that the speaker and addressees are throwbacks. A _mademoiselle_ was originally a young unmated Omega of good background or status. A _madame_ is a mated Omega of same. When taking on noble titles, what we in our non-a/b/o reality think of as the feminine declension (Comtesse, Duchesse, Queen) are in the world of _heirs_ the _carrier_ declension. I briefly discussed this [here](http://timeforalongstory.tumblr.com/post/115848163400/dude-but-imagine-this-an-au-of-heirs-where-when): Treville is properly a Comtesse (Troisville) and a Duchesse (Richelieu). D’Artagnan is a Comtesse (la Fère). Anne is properly a King. If you were watching closely, you might have spotted that in the epilogue to _heirs_ , I go out of my way to avoid calling Anne “Queen”. That’s because she’s abandoned the misgendered (actually missexed) title at that point and transitioned to her correct title of “King” – actually “King Consort”, since the crown is inherited through Louis. (I had written a paragraph about that originally but cut it because it was basically a footnote and the epilogue had enough of those). Also in the epilogue when the maid comes to wake d’Artagnan up, what she says to him is this: “ _Madame’s_ labor has started.” She’s talking about Treville.

Even in early France(/Navarre/etc.), mixed-blood lines holding status or title was far from uncommon, which meant the language had to evolve to accommodate what happened when Betas found themselves in positions of power. Many European languages were evolving at the same time (Modern English, Modern German, etc.) and they mostly all arrived at the common approach of just extending traditionally throwback terms to Betas, assigning them as per their sex (sire/carrier). So Beta males laid claim to titles like _Monsieur, Duc, Comte_ and Beta females could be privileged to be called _Mademoiselle._

Notice I say _laid claim to_ and _privileged to be called_. Attaining an honorific or title was a privilege, a courtesy, extended to them upon their marriage or other ascension to status. It was not something they were born with. By contrast, an Omega was _born with_ the right to be called “mademoiselle”. Remember: the pre-Inquisition world was heavily tilted against Betas. This didn’t _just_ express itself on a macro scale, like Beta males having trouble amassing wealth or Beta females having trouble finding eligible mates. It also expressed itself through a wealth of microaggressions, including language inequity like this. And the Inquisition wasn’t interested in equalizing it. Indeed, it went out of its way to reverse the balance. They made Betan terms like “child” the default over throwback terms like “pup”, rather than replacing them with neutral terms like “offspring”. They erased throwback’s pronouns so effectively that even traditional families like the d’Herblays or the Richelieus, who still practice the old ways in secret, use Betan pronouns to refer to themselves. And they took over terms like “mademoiselle” for their own use. Introduced the concept of ‘aligned’ versus ‘unaligned’ throwbacks. Made throwbacks see their gender before they see their sex, even though that’s the opposite of what’s needed for a healthy throwback society.

And they knew they were doing it. They were doing it _punitively_ , because that unhealthy world is similar to the one that _Betas_ had been living in under throwback rule. This is something I can’t say enough. _The pre-Inquisition Betas had legitimate complaints. They were treated badly and subjected to systemic oppression._ There is a lot of tension around the fact that, when the throwbacks were in charge, they did not wield their power well – to put it mildly. One of the major challenges for our characters in _heirs_ that extends past the end of the story is to build an equitable social system in a world – or at least a Western Europe – that has _never known such a thing._

It might start with calling all carriers – regardless of sex – _mademoiselle_.


	7. Omegas and the Drive for Parenthood in Heirs

**Q:** _Seems like although d'Artagnan makes the statement he does not want to be the summation of his fertility that in fact all omegas, other than Charlotte who had her choice taken away, have a need to be a parent. Was that on purpose?_

…huh. Well, your question caught me by surprise! So I guess that means the answer is no… but that answer doesn’t tell the whole story.

I read several different questions in your ask. One was:

_was it on purpose that reproduction/parenting/inheritance were major themes in your story?_

Two was:

_why (in-character) did all of the carriers have a need to be a parent_? 

Three was:

_why, as the author, did you write carriers who had a need to be a parent?_

Four was,

_why didn’t_ heirs _have any representation for carriers who are pupless by choice_?

Each of those questions has a different answer.

**One: _was it on purpose that reproduction/parenting/inheritance were major themes in your story?_ **

It _was_ on purpose that succession, inheritance, and generational change were major themes in the story. The word _heirs_ is in the title for a reason. And while that heirship is often spiritual, it is also just as often physical. In creating this world I centered the oppression of throwbacks around their reproduction. They were branded as unnatural because of it: knots? Heats? Litters? Female-identified individuals who sired young and male-identified individuals who carried young? Those were the traits that the Inquisition branded subhuman and animalistic. So that heavily informed the character arcs people took. I wanted to talk about reproductive organs and what happens when they get too inextricably linked to people’s conceptions of sex/gender/societal roles/etc. I wanted to talk about the way the ability to bear young has oppressed carriers throughout history. I wanted to talk about carrying young as an act of defiance. I wanted to talk about infertility. I wanted to talk about parenting. So the _themes_ are intentional. Their pervasiveness was not consciously intentional. But in seeking to explore all sides of the reproductive issues, I made choices that ended up with the results you read.

**Two: _why (in-character) did all of the carriers have a need to be a parent_?**

_Does_ every carrier have a need to be a parent?

Treville was consciously written with that as part of his character, so yes, he does – and yet he’s also the character who freely sets that aside, which paradoxically makes him the best representation of a carrier who’s childless by choice in the fic. He has a need to be a parent; and yet he deliberately sets that need aside.

Aramis starts out with no need to be a parent. He later has a change of heart; it’s one part realizing it may be possible (he had been rather thoroughly brainwashed as a pup by his family into thinking he mustn’t), one part wanting to give Porthos what Porthos wants, and one part an act of defiance. But he goes on a long journey to get to that point, and adds a fourth part, which is, _I’m not going to let my own body beat me._ He _ends up_ with a need to be a parent.

Charlotte, before the Inquisition, wanted pups. But not out of a need to be a parent. Out of a longing for family. I believe there’s a distinction, and that the satisfaction she gains from her post-Inquisition clan is the same satisfaction she’d sought by trying to get pupped. Post-Inquisition… well. She hates her infertility not just, or even mostly, for _what_ it’s denied her (the ability to be a parent) but rather because it denied her a part of her that’s hers by right. She hates the choice that was taken away from her, and being around other carriers carrying and whelping is difficult for that reason. But she doesn’t particularly regret not being a parent. She regrets not getting to choose. She regrets not being able to offer that to Adele. Her feelings toward her infertility are tied up with her general post-Inquisition body dysphoria.

D’Artagnan has no need to be a parent. He is _willing_ to be a parent. He thinks he’d be a good parent the same way he thinks he’d be good at anything else he puts his mind to. He has no objection to being a parent. Parenting is a duty he can undertake. In _heirs_ , he finds himself in a situation where, as far as he can tell, someone has to undertake that duty. _Someone_ is going to be pupped, to carry and whelp and have to raise pups. He finds himself in a position to choose whom, and he chooses himself. But go back and look at why he does it. Because it would be too dangerous for Treville. Because he’s got a better chance of surviving it. Because he owes Treville. Because he thinks he _can_ undertake this duty, and therefore he _should_ undertake it. But nowhere in there is a _need_ to be a parent. Only a willingness. D’Artagnan loves his pups, of course. And he’s going to be a fine parent. But that’s not why he gets pupped.

**Three _. Why, as the author, did you write carriers who had a need to be a parent?_**

A lot of me got tangled up in the story. I wrote _heirs_ in no small part as a way of threshing out a lot of my feelings on identity. Gender and sexual identities made it in there; religion made it in there; familial rejection and betrayal, ostracism, the sense of a life lived under siege. Body dysphoria. And then the desire to be a parent, too, which formed a big part of my identity and simultaneously created a lot of tension in my life. You can find pieces of me everywhere in the fic, from Treville’s dismayed deferral to Aramis’ infertility and miscarriage. D’Artagnan is a sustained shout of outrage at the idea that bearing young reduces someone from a human being to an incubator. He’s almost wish-fulfillment in how easily he conceived and whelped. Ah, but d’Artagnan’s feelings about being sidelined while his babies are young – I softballed them significantly, since postpartum depression wouldn’t fit in the epilogue, but that made it in there too. And Charlotte is the nightmare I narrowly avoided.

And as I said above – I wanted to talk about carrying young as an act of defiance. I wanted to talk about being a parent not being the end of autonomy. I wanted to talk about the choice to have offspring _and_ have a career, or a calling, or a job – a choice different from the one to be childless, but one just as often derided.

**Four: _why didn’t_ heirs _have any representation for carriers who are pupless by choice_?**

Even given that not every carrier had a need to be a parent, it’s still true that at the end of the fic, everyone who _can_ have pups pretty much _does_ have pups. It’s fair to ask where the characters who _can_ but _don’t_ are.

For the majority of the fic, Treville is carrying the standard of pupless by choice. He is not alone. There are many, many throwbacks who choose not to have pups for the same reason Aramis, at the beginning of the story, doesn’t want to have pups. It’s dangerous for the carrier. It’s dangerous for the sire. It’s dangerous for unaligned throwbacks. It’s dangerous for the pups. It’s not worth the risk.

If there were no Inquisition, Treville would have pups. So it cannot be said that the choice is made freely. But that’s true of every throwback in the fic. Under the Inquisition, every choice a throwback makes is made under duress. If you’re looking for a character who’s not under duress from the Inquisition, you’d have to look to Betas. But Beta carriers are under duress too, just from society. At this point in history, there’s no one who chooses without duress.

In the context of the AU, Treville is the best representation I can provide for being pupless by choice. If Treville’s need to be a parent were actually the preeminent force in his life, he could do it. He would fake his death, retire to the Richelieu estates – the most secure place for throwbacks in France – and have all the pups he wished. He’d want for nothing, materially. But he makes a different choice. And so there you are. At the end of the fic, society’s judgment changes dramatically, and suddenly Treville doesn’t have to choose anymore. But the fact remains that when he _did_ have to choose… he didn’t choose pups.

As long as _heirs_ is, even still, not everything could fit. I would love if _heirs_ were 100% representational, but I know that it isn’t. Porthos’ experience of racism doesn’t get fully dealt with; neither does Bernajoux’s. I don’t even touch the issues that their loved ones will struggle with as a result of racism directed at the characters of color. Slavery and systems of racial oppression took a backseat to the sexual and gendered oppression. And even so, within sexual and gendered oppression, the focus was on trans issues and feminist (carrier) issues. I didn’t get a chance to explore what it meant that Louis and Anne, or Bernajoux and Boisrenard, are all sires in relationships with each other. The non-duonormative relationship (Louis/Anne/Constance) had to be kept out of the spotlight for plot reasons. I didn’t get a chance to write a carrier/carrier relationship. Jussac passes so effectively that few people noticed he’s ace.

I wish I could have written those themes out, too. All I can say is _I’m not done yet._


	8. Milady, the Package and the Riot in Athis (Heirs Chapter 4)

**Q:** _So now i’m totally lost about this riot/package thing and the involvment of Milady… Why are they doing that? And who is the person Aramis recognized at the inn?_

Whoops, I knew I’d cut that explanation from the Athos/Milady reunion scene, but forgot that I needed to put it back in somewhere. Ehehehe. Well, now that I’m talking as the author and not as one of the characters, I can give you the full story. I’ve been waiting for an excuse to talk about Marie anyway ;)

(The package is the one that Athos and Aramis were tasked to courier from a small town near Évry to the Duchesse de Luynes in Chapter 4 of _ye heirs of glory_. After being set upon by brigands, who had in their possession a note of hand signed 'Milady', Athos and Aramis decide to take an alternate route back to Paris to avoid any other interested parties. They thereby unintenionally but fortuitously avoide an anti-throwback riot that's broken out in the town of Athis, which would otherwise have been on their route and swept them up in it.) 

The Duchesse du Luynes (nee Marie de Rohan, one day the Duchesse de Chevreuse) is a throwback (Omega) and heavily involved with the Underground. She can’t do much herself because she’s so recognizable, but she funds it heavily and she also uses her name and position like a cloak. She actually crops up all through the story at various points. She’s the recipient of the package in chapter 4, which is how she comes in to this conversation. Her history is told out of order in the fic, but to straighten it back out, she’s the throwback daughter (eve) of two very rich and powerful nobles and is extremely beautiful (in no small part due to her throwback heritage). She’s also a firebrand who wants to be a freedom fighter. Her parents would prefer she lives a quiet life, but the midwife who’d helped her be whelped hooks her up with the Underground. She does crazy stupid things as a youth, which is how she meets her future mate/husband, Charles d'Albert, duc de Luynes. In chapter 29 Richelieu marries them. He knows that they’re throwbacks, but neither of them know about him. They’re strictly Underground only. They do both know Treville.

In chapter 13, d'Artagnan recalls that Charles d'Albert had been caught, exposed and killed while on campaign in Longueville, and that Marie had volunteered for interrogation with the Cardinal to clear her name. Well, “volunteered” is not quite the right word. When Charles is caught out, word gets back to Treville quickly, and he goes and _tells_ her to volunteer. And Marie thinks he’s crazy; there’s no way she can fool Richelieu. Then the Red Guards burst in, and Marie thinks that Treville’s betraying her and may even have been the one to betray her husband. But the Red Guards are Jussac and his squad, and Jussac says “I hear you volunteered for interrogation with the Cardinal” and she says “…no” and he says “YES YOU DID take her away” and they haul her before Richelieu. And Marie pulls out a knife and tries to kill him. Straight-up tries to murder him, figuring she’s dead anyway and she has nothing left to lose. Richelieu dodges for a while but that gets boring, so he picks her up and holds her off the ground and away from himself (advantage of longer arms). Marie keeps trying to stab him, but after a few minutes she realizes that he’s still holding her off the ground… and that his arms aren’t trembling… and that he doesn’t seem to be at all tired. And then Treville walks in and says something terribly fond and Richelieu says something terribly fond back and _that’s_ when the penny drops.

So Richelieu protects her from the fallout from Charles’ death, and she becomes a patron of the Resistance as well as the Underground. Richelieu gets her back at court and introduces her to her second husband, the Duc de Chevreuse, another throwback. Marie maneuvers as close to the Queen as she can get. She also continues to use her name and position as a shield to protect throwbacks. As told in chapter 36, Marie takes Brasseur’s sister on a maid in her household when Brassuer and Havet need a safe place for their pups to grow up. After the Proclamation, she becomes friends and political allies with the Queen and is a major pole of support for New France.

All right, so now you know why Treville is asking throwback Musketeers to smuggle a package to the Duchesse de Luynes. And you’ve probably guessed what the package contains: suppressants. Marie doesn’t get them as often as Treville does; as an independent noblewoman, spending half the year on her own estates is normal, so she can get away with suppressing once a year or even once every few years.

Who is the man Aramis recognizes? One of the people Adele had introduced him to, when Adele was joining the Resistance. This person isn’t actually Resistance, but is a member of the Court of Miracles, and the Resistance often uses them to route people and goods. (In chapter 21, Aramis and Porthos go to the Court to get supressants for Treville, after his usual channels have become too dangerous to use.)

Unfortunately, that particular person hasn’t been as discreet as they should have been, and the Inquisitor of Lille has gotten wind of the fact that Something Is Up. (Lille is behind the ultimate outing of Charles d'Albert, and this, unfortunately, is the start of it all: when Lille realizes that someone is smuggling suppressants to the Luynes household.) Now, Lille could simply denounce him/the Luyneses, but he doesn’t have enough proof to be SURE, and Richelieu will fillet Lille like a fish if he’s wrong. So Lille sends his agents to instigate a riot in Athis along the return route for the Musketeers. Lille doesn’t realize that the Musketeers are themselves throwbacks. This is well before he becomes suspicious of Treville. Lille just thinks that the riot will give him cover to have the package stolen and inspected; and then, if it contains what he suspects it contains, he can denounce Charles and Marie.

Milady happens to be in the area on a totally unrelated matter - basically a milk run, since she’s new to the Resistance and only barely removed from her deathbed. But she overhears the agents plotting. She doesn’t have time to call for backup and she can’t stop the riot on her own. So she solves the problem by having Aramis and Athos take a different route back to Paris. She figures that if she just rides up to them and says “Hey guys take a different route back to Paris” they won’t listen to her. So she gambles that two Musketeers will be able to defeat the world’s most incompetent brigands, AND that they’ll be smart enough to decide to take a different route back after being attacked. (She’s stationed herself a little ways out of Athis, as well; if the Musketeers DON’T pick a different route, approaching them and showing her token is Plan B.) She gives the bandit leader a note of hand with her name on it so that Treville will know it was she as soon as the Musketeers return.

It’s a huge gamble, and Richelieu gains another few grey hairs when he hears about it, but it works! The day is saved, and no one who shouldn’t be is any the wiser that there was a third party (Milady/the Resistance) moving things along in the background.


	9. Madame de Bois-Tracy

**Q:** _what exactly happened to Madame de Bois-Tracy?_

Believe it or not, she was actually killed by brigands. I know :p 

There’s a little more to it than that, but not much. She was on her way to “visit” a “friend” who had an estate in the country, and her “companion” was coming with her, as usual. Actually, the purpose of the trip was to bring her companion - who was the crisis midwife mentioned later on in _heirs_ \- to the aid of an Omega who lived two villages over from her “friend” and was facing a very difficult whelping. Madame de Bois-Tracy and the friend she was to visit were both affiliated with the Underground. The midwife in question was also affiliated with the Resistance; Madame de Bois-Tracy was kept in the dark about that part. Her main contribution to the Underground was to provide the midwife with the standing, legitimacy and funding to travel freely and help Omegas in dangerous positions.

Unfortunately, as they were travelling, they were set upon by brigands. They were under-guarded at the time because they didn’t want to bring anyone without Underground connections, and while normally the Underground would have provided extra manpower, they were overcommitted at the time with Rochefort in town. No one thought this trip would be dangerous. But Rochefort’s presence and agitation tactics had stirred up a lot of existing unrest among the common people, and that in turn had occupied the guard patrols and soldiers charged with keeping the roads safe, and so there had been something of a holiday for brigands at that time. One particularly well-armed band waylaid Madame de Bois-Tracy’s carriage and the rest is history.

Since Madame de Bois-Tracy and her companion (the midwife) were actually both Betas, no one associated them with the Underground or the Resistance. But losing the medical care lead to loss of life for Omegas in precarious positions, including, unfortunately, the one they were going to help. The local midwife tried, but one of the pups was transverse and blocking the whelping passage for the other pups. When the carrier learned what was happening, she told her mate she loved her and then told the midwife to cut her open and save the pups. All three lived.


	10. Porthos

**Q:** _Does Porthos ever find out (exactly) what happened to his bio-family? How does Louis handle the whole enslavement of Alphas & Omegas in his country?_

He doesn’t, no. Porthos is never able to identify exactly which plantation he’s from, and it wouldn’t matter if he did, because he has no way to gain access to its records. It’s not that Louis wouldn’t help - the problem is that the plantations aren’t under French control.

Technically, as Aramis points out, slavery is already illegal in France. But as _Porthos_ points out, that’s enforced approximately not at all when it comes to throwbacks. No one investigates whether that servant is actually free to leave their employer. Unfortunately that’s not just true in the case of throwbacks/black people; 17th century France isn’t exactly a worker’s paradise, and it’s depressingly trivial for anyone with the slightest bit of privilege to evade the anti-slavery laws. Even more so than the nobility, the merchant classes are basically maintaining their standard of living and the economic viability of their businesses through slave (throwback) labor. The average Inquisition guard turns a blind eye to anyone with dark skin (a fact that Bernajoux and other black Resistance members exploit ruthlessly). 

But the plantations themselves are technically not French. There’s “keeping your enslaved servant under the radar” and then there’s “hiding a massive operation dedicated to breeding throwbacks”. So it’s all done through the 17th century equivalent of shell companies and offshore tax havens; Frenchmen invest in Spanish or Portuguese plantations and receive slaves in return. People like Bonnaire run the slaves into France “illegally” and sell them into private ownership where they effectively disappear. (These slave ships are targets for just about everyone: Louis impounds them - officially for failing to pay import and customs taxes; Richelieu has the runners jailed for “throwback collusion”, because technically even breeding throwbacks for slave labor is considered being a sympathizer; the Resistance scuttles the ships at every opportunity and makes Examples of the runners. But once a slave has been brought into France and sold into private ownership, the only way to do anti-slavery enforcement is systematically, which had to wait for the Proclamation.)

Unfortunately this means that even after the Proclamation goes into effect, Anne and Richelieu can’t go after the plantations directly, since they’re Spanish (or other Inquisition country’s) holdings on Spanish (or other Inquisition country’s) colonies/territory. France can and does eliminate slavery within their own borders and fight the Thirty Years’ War with Spain (by far the biggest owner of plantations), but none of that helps Porthos find his bio family.

If Porthos did find the records, he’d find that most of his immediate bio family are dead, as he’d predicted. It’s possible one of his odems is still alive. If so, having now seen BBC Musketeers season 2, I picture someone like Samara. Someone with great inner strength and the ability to mentally go outside of one’s circumstances. Someone who, if freed, would want to leave Europe and the Catholic Church behind completely and seek a new life in a country that had never heard of the Inquisition, where they can feel accepted instead of being eternally other for the color of their skin.

But no. Porthos never finds out what happens to his bio family.


	11. Nicol de Richelieu

**Q:** _Does richelieu's sister Nicol really stay in a convent for the rest of her life, or can Richelieu get her out once the inquisition is thrown out of France?_

Poor Nicol, I did kind of leave her plot thread hanging, didn’t I? :p My original thoughts about Nicol were roughly that she’d been sent to the convent shortly before Alfonse got pupped, and that any Richelieu family attempt to prevent it/rescue her were laid by the wayside in the need to get Alfonse out of France (a prioritization Nicol had been aware of and wholly supported). Afterwards, the family’s political capitol would have been at a fairly low ebb, and Armand would have needed to do a lot of work before he’d gain the clout to try and interfere with Nicol’s husband, who I pictured as a member of Monsieur’s ([Gaston d’Orleans’](https://www.google.com/url?url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston,_Duke_of_Orl%25C3%25A9ans&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwivlbidmJXHAhUJWz4KHQTADXU&sig2=aIFDTdA6yJw6NxjMXXlFcA&usg=AFQjCNFq-9ph1tj8t-fPbtAkLc9-oXa-Wg)) coterie (Nicol’s sire had been trying to broaden the family’s influence; it didn’t work out). During part three, when Richelieu and Treville are courting, it’s mentioned that Richelieu has only just gotten rid of Marie de’ Medici. That means this is the first opportunity he’s really had to wield the kind of power that might get Nicol out of there. My intention was always that, shortly after Armand and Jean mate, Armand manages to secure an annulment for the marriage, and Nicol is free to go elsewhere. Since I didn’t have a role for her to play in part four, my vague plan was that she would choose to marry outside of France in a ‘safe’ country, probably England, and therefore be fine but off-screen.

However, you’re not the only one to notice I left Nicol hanging. [kat2107](http://tmblr.co/mK6ogLws87U-rcJTtscDVOg) is a Nicol partisan and sent me the following some time ago:

> _Yesterday I had a thought: what about “female” throwbacks? I mean, you can hide “males” more or less well in the army, but with social conventions females can’t hide anywhere. They’re not allowed to be alone. Jeanne couldn’t even go to a tavern with the boys and needs to stay behind almost every time they go and have fun._
> 
> _And then it occurred to me: convents, of course._
> 
> _And Nicol is in a convent. What if that isn’t some kind of imprisonment? Her Aleph and Odems would have made sure she was in the best place possible._
> 
> _So what if they placed her in a convent as far from society’s scrutiny as possible to hide her “shame”. And if that convent happens to be chock full of throwbacks… ah well, who could have guessed?_
> 
> _I’m pretty sure that convent would have an orphanage. Nuns are very well suited to take care of disadvantaged children (“pups” *cough*)_
> 
> _It’s not like it would be in any way possible to prevent one or two of those to be born when you lock a bunch of Alphas and Omegas in close confines with the occasional Beta thrown in._
> 
> _So, screw her stupid husband, Nicol got a mate!_
> 
> _But this convent would be a perfect halfway point for travels from Italy to Paris (maybe with a holy site, a little pilgrim’s chapel for the Cardinal to have a reason to stop there besides his sister). It’s a safe place when they need to lay low or when one of them is injured on a mission and so on._

I really like the spin Kat put on this so I’m officially adopting it :) So to answer your question, yes, she now officially really does stay in a convent for the rest of her life, but it’s by choice. And after the Revolution she can travel to and from it more freely so she’s occasionally to be found in Paris (she would probably come visit after Jean whelps, for example).

Taking this canon a step further, Armand would need someone he could trust to help him administer the religious side of things. He wisely makes the monarchy the head of the Church of France (as was done in England) instead of letting himself get saddled with it entirely, but he still ends up as the Archcardinal on top of being First Minister and the effective leader of the throwback people in France. Armand can do a lot of delegating to the existing structures within the Underground and the Resistance for a lot of these things, both throwback and political (because there are a lot of highly placed nobles in the Underground), but the religious side of things is tough. Although many of the main POV characters in _heirs_ are religious I tried to make it known that they’re outliers. As a result of being persecuted many throwbacks are either atheists or believe that God exists but abandoned them. Armand would consider atheism and/or rejection of God as a problem he needs to fix. Nicol would be perfect for Armand to tap to support this effort in post-Revolution France. (Please note that Cardinal Richelieu’s religious beliefs are not representative of the blogger’s.)  


	12. Aramis, Adele and the Alameda clan

**Q:** _Do Aramis and/or adele ever make contact with the Alameda clan again?_

After learning Aramis and Adele’s bloodline, Anne wants to get in contact with the Alameda family as soon as possible, but Aramis and Adele are able to talk her off the cliff. The Alamedas are so insular and reclusive that they would just run away from such an overture. The Resistance movements in other countries have been trying to reach into Spain for generations with no success. The Alamedas aren’t interested in hooking up with other movements in other nations. Aramis and Adele know this; Richelieu is still sore that, even with Adele working for the French Resistance, he’s _still_ unable to make any headway into Spain.

This changes slowly after the French Revolution. After said revolution, Spain is in a diplomatic quandary. They eventually start fighting the 30 Years’ War with France but, as I mention in the epilogue, that takes a year or two to get started. In the meanwhile they still want to send an ambassador to France, officially to “try to bring France back to the bosom of the Church” but really to get as much information as possible about who are and aren’t throwbacks/sympathizers (so they know who to execute after they conquer France, and also who to fund as a fifth column of pro-Inquisition feeling in France). Naturally France is expecting this maneuver and so they’re planning all sorts of counterespionage. It’s therefore quite a surprise when the new Spanish Ambassador arrives: the Duc d’Alameda.

The theory in Spain had been that Spain needs to send the most stalwart, loyal Catholic they can find so that they can walk among the sinners of France without being corrupted. Ironically, this is the head of the Alameda family, that noted stronghold of Betan superiority (:p). Anne and Constance spend the first few weeks trying to get this guy to admit that he’s secretly a throwback himself (in private, of course) but they’re put off every time. Finally Richelieu invites him over to the Palais-Cardinal for “a state dinner” that involves walking by the private quarters just as Aramis and Adele happen to show up holding Aramis’ new pups. Richelieu gets to do his patented eye-raised, arms-folded deadpan look where he goes “Still want to try and claim you’re a Beta? Or would you like to hold your niblings?” and the Duc is like _ugh okay fine you got me but look you really need to keep this a secret_ and Adele goes _you realize that he’s known about Rene and I for twenty years and kept the secret? And also managed to be come a Cardinal in the Catholic church while being a throwback himself?_ and the Duc feels better at that point and says _well in that case, those are some adorable pups, izzy wizzy wizzy ::blows raspberry::_

So after that there are some tentative channels open between France and Spain – or, really, between the Alameda clan and the Richelieu clan. It’s all very much being handled on a personal level and is only made possible by the fact that there are two blood Alamedas who are now Richelieus. Still, it leads to better outcomes for pups being smuggled out of Spain (they’re no longer just handed a purse and kicked over the border) and France funnels weapons to throwbacks in Spain (::cough:: Catalans ::cough::).


	13. Fantasy Casting and How Characters Look

**Q:** _From reading your heirs descriptions of Adele having dark hair and Flea having red hair, am I right in thinking that your characters look different to their bbc counterparts?_

Several of them do look quite different. First let me say that I’m not a very visual writer or reader when it comes to characters. _Scenes,_ yes, I imagine those very clearly – the landscape and the imagery and the relative positions of characters to one another – but when it comes to details like hair or eye color or facial structure, I tend not to imagine those, to be honest. And as a result, even when a character comes with an actor already attached – such as in movies or TV shows – I don’t retain a memory of how they look. If a character is a regular/main character, I might remember their dominant features, but one-off characters don’t stick in my brain. I suppose it’s analogous to face blindness. I watched all of S1, so I must have known at some point how the actresses who played Adele and Flea looked. But I honestly, truly do not remember – and I didn’t bother to look it up when I started writing _heirs_ , because I don’t need it in order to write.

And _heirs_ Adele, in particular, is really an entirely different character who happens to share the same name with the minor BBC character. When I developed the plot of _heirs_ , I invented an original character to be Aramis’ aleph and named her after the BBC character in homage to the single point of commonality between them, which is that both of them were at one point Richelieu’s mistress. I’ve actually only seen the pilot episode once, and I didn’t go back to refer to it when I started developing _heirs_ Adele; I didn’t recall the BBC character having much depth anyway. And as part of my general “not needing to know what characters look like”, I didn’t bother to assign her any specific traits until or unless I needed to mention them in the story. (Lazy author is lazy). At one point I needed a hair color, so I gave her dark hair like her odem. Since Aramis and Adele are littermates – twins – I would generally assume that Adele looks like a female version of Aramis.

As for Flea, I remember when I was writing her appearance from Porthos’ POV my main concern was that she look as different from Porthos as possible, to highlight his culture shock. I have also only seen the Court of Miracles episode from S1 once, and again, I didn’t go back to check on it. I did recall that Flea was a very pale, ultrawhite person, and thinking that she was probably cast that way to contrast with the darker Charon and Porthos. So I went in that general direction. I’ve now looked up her image and reminded myself that the BBC gave her very pale hair as well. I thought red hair would be the most exotic sight to a young pup just off the plantation. If you prefer the white hair, I’d say that a woman in her position would change her appearance often in order to help evade the Provost, so she probably has different hair colors at different points over the timespan of _heirs_. Finally, when writing Flea’s character I also took inspiration from Esmeralda (from _The Hunchback of Notre Dame_ ) who in film adaptations is sometimes shown with red hair.

As for the rest of the cast – when someone’s a regular on a show I do better at remembering how they look, and the more interested I am in their character the better my memory gets. So in _heirs_ Richelieu and Treville look fairly similar to their BBC counterparts, since that was the adaptation and the casting that really inspired me to view those characters in a romantic context. Howard Charles, as I’ve said elsewhere, is my definitive Porthos – he literally redefined how I view the character – and so I picture him fairly clearly too. After that it starts to get fuzzy. Luke Pasqualino’s d’Artagnan and Ryan Gage’s Louis mainly come through for me, but past that, my memory gets fuzzy – especially since this isn’t the only Musketeers adaptation I’ve ever watched!

There are certain truisms for the casting of the main characters – Aramis is Spanish, Athos is noble, Porthos is a giant, d’Artagnan is tall but coltish – that I relied on when writing _heirs_. In general I assumed _heirs_ ’ readership would be familiar with at least one Dumas adaptation and would imagine their preferred version of the major characters. I only mentioned major characters’ physical attributes when they differ from the expected norm, for example to confirm that this is Howard Charles’ Porthos and not the generic Stocky White Guy Doing A Comic Turn.

I tried to be better about describing characters like Jussac who don’t come with existing descriptions, though I didn’t always succeed, I know. Partway through _heirs_ I got a helping hand in the form of commenters playing a fantasy casting game for the under-described characters, which put faces to the names. I’ve been collecting those and listing them in the end notes to benefit more visual readers. And if I ever go back and do a ‘second draft’ of _heirs_ , better character descriptions will be one of the things I’ll add. 

Finally: I wouldn’t _want_ to slavishly copy the Beeb. Dumas’ works are my first love, and while I like many elements of the BBC’s adaptation, there are just as many that I dislike. I would hate it if _heirs_ were too inextricably linked with the BBC’s adaptation. Every adaptation may add elements to how I interact with Dumas’ works, but first and foremost I’m writing and playing in Dumas’ world, not the BBC’s. I’d like to hope that _heirs_ can stand apart from the BBC and that someone who’s only read Dumas wouldn’t have any problems accessing _heirs._

The fantasy cast for background characters is as follows: Cahusac is now played by Olivier Martinez, Bernajoux by Blaise Matuidi, and Boisrenard by Ezequiel Lavezzi. The youngest d'Herblay - the baby Alpha whom Aramis and Adele leave behind in chapter 1, who grows up to inherit the duchy - is [Óscar Jaenada](http://fuckyeahoscarjaenada.tumblr.com/post/95953037166/%C3%B3scar-jaenada-for-black-sepoctnov-2014). The fantasy casting game continues; send me your suggestions for other characters who need casting!


	14. Seizing the Critical Moment

**Q:** _Heirs (for the fic meme: Put the title of one of my fics in my ask and I’ll tell you something about it that no one knows.)_

Early on in heirs, while Porthos and Aramis are in the caverns of Le Havre, they play some highly metaphorical chess games and have a very significant discussion about life, the universe and everything. Among what they discuss is survival, and how, most of the time, playing it safe keeps you alive – until the critical moment comes, and trying to be safe just gets you dead. (This is also part of Laflèche’s advice to Athos: _in every throwback’s life a time will come when you have to decide who to trust_.) 

_Heirs_ as a story is a series of critical moments. Every character has their critical moment on-screen, and it alters the course of history. In very roughly chronological order:

  * Porthos’ moment is going with Flea to Paris.
  * Adele’s is leaving Aramis behind and letting Richelieu fake her death.
  * Charlotte’s is telling Richelieu she’ll do whatever it takes to live and fight back against the Inquisition.
  * Aramis’ moment is telling Porthos that he wants to live, in the caverns of Le Havre.
  * D’Artagnan’s is when he decides not to take the contraceptives, even believing as he does that it will mean giving up the safety of the Musketeers and making his way alone in the world.
  * Athos’ moment is trusting Adele in the Richelieu woods, and then also trusting d’Artagnan more than he trusts his fears.
  * Treville’s is when he runs back to Paris in chapter 36. When he realizes that he can’t live with the consequences if he doesn’t – and _knows_ , with an unshakeable conviction, that Richelieu will follow him.
  * And Richelieu’s moment comes last of all: when he decides to trust Anne, and admits the existence of the Resistance aloud in violation of everything he holds to be true.



Richelieu is the most interesting one, because he’s worked so hard all his life, and yet his moment comes last because all of his work has been for others. At the end of the fic, when the party splits up and Richelieu goes to the Louvre (effectively) alone, that’s also a metaphor for the roads these characters are walking. The Bastille party are travelling openly. They’re owning their sexes and walking proudly in the light of day. Porthos thinks it: _For the first time in memory, they haven’t bothered with their usual perfumes. Today they ride as they are, open and unashamed. Today they are heroes._

Meanwhile Richelieu goes to the Louvre, closeted and hidden, still wearing his protective camouflage. The Bastille party have all passed through their critical moments, their own personal Gethsemanes (oh yes, the Richelieu-as-Jesus parallel is intentional). They know their own worth and they know their own limits and that sets them free.

Richelieu doesn’t yet have that freedom. He doesn’t yet know his own price. He’s worked hard all his life, but all his treasures are on Earth, stored up for others. In an early draft of the conversation Porthos and Richelieu have by the river back in chapter 35, Porthos asks why Richelieu isn't more angry about Porthos having suggested breaking Treville’s heat. And Richelieu says he's saving up all his anger, because one day he'll die and then of course he'll go to Hell. And so he's saving his anger for when he meets all of Treville's rapists in Hell. The first time you read that scene, you’re focused on Porthos, and that’s the goal, that’s the point. But the second-look version of that scene, when you're not distracted by Porthos and Porthos' issues, was going to be: Richelieu is calmly certain that he's going to Hell, as a murderer and worse. He's not even dismayed about it because he accepted it long ago and he's just trying to make his life worthwhile. Lay the necessary groundwork for the next generation. He doesn't think he's anything more than a footnote. And he's not unhappy or angry about it; he's not even resigned. That’s just the way life is. And that, paradoxically, is what’s holding him back: he’s so resigned to the fact that he’s not going to be the one to save his people _that he’s failing to save his people._ (Richelieu-as-Moses is also deliberate; _heirs_ is an Exodus allegory, among many other things.) And so Richelieu’s critical moment comes when he’s forced to confront the notion that maybe he _will_ save his people; maybe the line will end with him; maybe he is not a link in the chain, but its anchor point.

There were many, many people who failed their critical moments and didn’t change the course of history. There were many people who passed their moments but died before the race was run. _Heirs_ is about the characters who came last, who were still standing when the dust settled. But they are carrying the bodies of those who came before, they are standing on their shoulders: the dead marched with the living at the end, and I hope everyone who read _heirs_ took at least a few moments to contemplate the silent heroes as well as the vocal ones.

At a fundamental level everyone’s decisions are the same, differing only in scope: everyone has to accept that there is more than just surviving. That there is more, full stop. That the one-foot-in-front-of-the-other, one-more-day approach is ultimately futile. More: that it is not all they are capable of. That they have the power within themselves, despite all the centuries of programming to the contrary, _to rise up and make change._

 

And now the bonus round! Here are the critical moments for the supporting cast, which occured offscreen/before _heirs_ picked up:

  * Anne decides to allow her new husband to discover her sex, expose and kill her, rather than kill him in the hopes of preserving her secret a little longer.
  * Louis, by contrast, decides to help keep Anne’s secret.
  * Constanza sweet-talks Rochefort into teaching Ana to shoot a gun, which involves an unfortunate amount of flirting and letting him put his hands on her.
  * Rochefort falls instantly in love with Ana on first meeting her, and never once questions that she may be anything less than a pure Betan woman fiercely devoted to the Inquisition, thereby laying the groundwork for his ultimate downfall. (Note that Ana would have been about 8 when they first met.)
  * Boisrenard’s moment is deciding to use his strength to save the mast of the sailing ship he’s serving on, and the lives of everyone aboard her, even though it means outing himself as an Alpha.
  * Bernajoux’s moment is being thrown into a prison cell with a mostly-dead Alpha (yes, Boisrenard) and letting himself embrace his same-sex attraction enough to trigger the rage that lets them both escape.
  * Kat is telling the world about Cahusac and Jeanne and all their supporting cast; I won’t steal her thunder, except to remind you all that she is doing a phenomenal job of it.
  * Jussac was offered an escape to any country he chose with enough money to start a new life when he was ten, again when he was fifteen, and then once again when he was twenty. It’s traditional; everyone in his bloodline was made the same offers, ever since the first de Richelieu tried to persuade the first de Jussac to leave and free his bloodline from the dangers of Resistance work. Robert considered it once… for about point five seconds. He’s one of those rare souls who has never had any difficulty knowing his path, nor any doubt about whether he should walk it. Not to say he’s never had difficulty actually walking it – everyone does – but he’s been blessed with a perceptiveness and clarity that made his choices straightforward.




	15. Inheritance Law in pre-Inquisition Mixed Societies

**Q:** _okay so, question for science: under strict alphaic primogeniture, would a title with no alpha pups to lay claim to it, go to the younger omega pup (and/or rather, the omega’s future mate) or the older beta son? (cough Treville)_

The Omega, of course! A Beta, inherit? Perish the thought, absolutely perish it! ::scandalized society matron look::

Well, okay, it’s not that universal. Some countries - like England - practiced _preference_ primogeniture, meaning there was a hierarchy of preference in inheritance: Alphas came first, followed by Omegas, followed by Betas. So in England and other countries like it a Beta _could_ inherit, if there were no Alpha or Omega siblings to preempt them. 

Other countries (like France) practiced _exclusive_ primogeniture, meaning that anyone not an Alpha couldn’t inherit, period. If there were no Alpha pups in a generation, the title (or estate, or what have you) would to go the Alpha mate of any Omega pups; if there were no Omega pups, it would go to the next closest Alpha cousin by blood. That could possibly be the adam (Alpha son) of a Beta son or daughter, that is to say, a grandadam of the original possessor. But Betas simply couldn’t inherit in countries like that, so the Beta child(ren) would be skipped.

However! Even if they can’t inherit, Betas can sometimes act as regents or trustees on behalf of heirs who are for some reason unable to control the inheritance directly. For example, the heir may be a minor. Or they may be holding an estate in trust themselves. Consider Troisville again. In the direct line there’s an older Beta male and a younger Omega. France practices exclusive primogeniture, so the Beta male can’t inherit. The Omega is a legal heir, but only through their Alpha mate. So what happens if the Omega unmated when the title falls vacant? The estate needs a trustee.

Here there forms a further divide among countries that practice this kind of exclusive primogeniture. Some countries, like France, allow the Omega (if of age) to act as the trustee of their own inheritance; they hold the title (so Jean would become a Comtesse) and receive control of the estate and any other land/money/etc. until they mate, at which point that control is made over to their mate. If the Omega is _not_ of age, a guardian has to hold the trust; most countries that allow an Omega to act as trustee also permit a Beta male to act in this role. So sticking with Troisville, Jean’s brother could become trustee and guardian if the title became vacant while Jean was both unmated and a minor. (Note that Jean could be a minor but mated, in which case the title would pass to his mate normally.)

(That assumes, by the way, that an Omega holding an estate in trust mates with an Alpha. If they don’t, the situation becomes murkier. In a country that practices preference primogeniture this isn’t a problem; a Beta husband could inherit through marriage. (The law has no provisions for Omega/Omega or Omega/Beta female marriage or mating, so there could be no inheritance sharing in those situations.) But in a country that practices exclusive primogeniture, the trust would be lost and the title/estate/whatever would pass to the nearest Alpha relative, leaving the Omega and their husband pretty much destitute.)

All right, that’s how it works in France. But if Troisville were magically relocated to, say, Austria-Hungary, suddenly things would be very different. In Austria-Hungary inheritances can’t be held in trust by Omegas for their future mates. So if Jean weren’t mated when the title became vacant – if there were no Alpha in the direct line, including by mating – the inheritance would skip him and go to the nearest Alpha relative. Omegas in that kind of a position were under a lot of pressure to mate early in order to secure their inheritance! Similarly, in such countries Beta males would never be permitted to act as trustees. There might need to be a trustee, if the inheritor of the title is a minor, but it would always be another Alpha.

Finally, all of this applies only to Western (Christian) Europe, which was dominated by pureblood culture up until the Inquisition – or, in a hypothetical non-Inquisition AU, up until/through the Age of Enlightenment began to break down traditional lines of authority in favor of individualism and egalitarianism. The rest of the world had their own laws, traditions and cultures which could be and often were wildly different.


	16. Athos and Alcohol

**Q** : _In heirs canon, does Athos still deal with alcohol? I wondered because there was no mention at all of this – but I kinda fucked up a bit and imagined how it would influence his relationship to d'Artagnan if he was drinking, how he’d draw back from him with drinking and how d'Artagnan would feel all alone with the pups. More of a spin-off to your story, and much more playing into Athos’ views of himself._

He does! Not, however, to the extent that he does in Dumas’ canon or that it’s implied he does in the BBC. I have very little exposure to true alcoholism so writing a character with that biological dependency was beyond me. Instead I tied Athos’ drinking to his emotional turmoil. The references are subtle, partly because Athos doesn’t see himself as having a problem. Here’s a quick rundown of where they appear so you can trace them back through the story:

Chapter Two: _The nightmares wake Olivier up at night, sheer terror galloping through his veins. It’s not until he finds his sire’s liquor cabinet that he’s able to sleep again._

And later in the chapter: _Blinded with grief, he crawls into the bottom of a bottle at the first inn he finds._

Chapter Three: Athos doesn’t tell you how much he’s drunk during his conversation with Laflèche, but it’s a ton, and yet he’s pretty coherent, because he’s used to abusing alcohol.   _Laflèche sees the line of his gaze and moves the bottle away completely. “That’s one thing,” he says. “You drink too much.” / “It helps me sleep,” Athos says._

Chapter Four: _“Ah, but I always keep back enough to buy the next bottle of wine,” Athos affirms._ He’s hiding his problem with humor, but that’s not a joke.

Chapter Ten: _At night, Athos gets Porthos drunk – drawing on his own impressive alcohol tolerance in the process – and pumps him for information on his past, his future goals, and his character._

Chapter Fourteen: _But when they visit the taverns, Athos is the first to start drinking and the last to stop. His alcohol tolerance is frightening. So is his disregard for pain… It’s like Athos doesn’t even feel it. Like he doesn’t notice._

Chapters Seventeen and Eighteen: _“D’Artagnan,” Athos says in some surprise. He’s seated at a small table; a bottle of Spanish wine is open on it._ The bottle of Spanish wine is referenced six times in these two chapters. Dumas says that Athos empties a bottle of Spanish wine religiously every night as part of his alcoholism; these are references to that practice.

So for the first half of the story, pretty much every time Athos is on-screen there’s a reference to his drinking. After Athos and d’Artagnan mate, the references to alcohol drop in frequency. Since I associated his drinking with emotional turmoil rather than a physical dependency, he has an easier time substituting one addiction for another. In this case, he substitutes the addiction of being d’Artagnan’s mate for the addiction of alcohol. The bond allows for emotional transfer; Athos relies on it for the same sort of oblivion he’d gotten from wine. D’Artagnan is a very emotionally overwhelming character, which turns out to be perfect for Athos. D’Artagnan is basically a 24/7 fountain of love and affection. It helps with the nightmares in the way the wine had used to. Though Athos still reacts to stress by wishing for alcohol – for example, when he’s confronting Charlotte, _Athos is weeping again. He wishes futilely that he were drunk._

I know that this is not a full depiction of someone who struggles with alcohol the way Athos is said to do. So the term ‘alcoholic’ may not apply in _heirs_. But you’re welcome and encouraged to imagine it playing out differently. If you were moved to write something that explored the impact on Athos’ drinking on his relationship with d’Artagnan post-Revolution that would be really cool, and I would read the heck out of it.


	17. Aramis and Infertility

_Warnings for this section: miscarriage, infertility, that dratted Harry Potter epilogue_

**Q:** _How about Aramis’ pregnancy? How did it come to be? In canon it is established he and Porthos have difficulties conceiving, so I felt a bit let down that in the epilogue, Aramis is suddenly healthily pregnant. While I had hoped for that after all the heart tearing (simple heart break would have been too gentle a term), it feels too easy to just give them the Harry-Potter-epilogue of „All was well“ - like, why? Why was it well? Did the medicine help? Did Adele’s proximity help him? Or the bigger pack? Did that calm him enough (like, I think Gepards have that thing where they can only conceive if not stressed out too much)? How is he pregnant if canon establishes he has difficulties? And yes, god, I’d love a story about how they achieved this…_

Ouch, right in the heart. I’m assuming you haven’t been going back through the comments, or you’d know that I was upfront about my desire to be as far as possible away from Harry Potter’s Magical Epilogue. So… chalk up another one for the pile of lost dreams, alas.

Thank you, though, for showing me where I had my author’s blinders on. And I see two ways where I was blind about this. The first way is that I fell into the trap of forgetting the readers who would come later. I wrote the story over the course of several months, so events didn’t seem quite so close together for me. I also had a group of readers who were reading as it came out, and they would ask questions, including questions about Aramis’ infertility. When those readers got to the end of the fic, they probably had more information about the topic than was actually present in the text, so their interpretation of events would have been enhanced. Whereas you’re coming from just the text, and so you can see where I left things out that weakened the experience.

The second way I had blinders on is that I was writing entirely from life. Aramis’ infertility is drawn directly from my own personal experience, with only the changes that were necessary to support a/b/o and delete professional gynecology.  And if there’s one thing I learned by having my fun little sojourn through infertility it’s that _everything_ happens suddenly. One day you’re fine and then boom! You have PCOS. Then you’re slogging through the valley of infertility and it seems like it will never end, but then boom! You’re pregnant. You’re at the doctor’s office for your appointment and wham! [You’re not anymore](http://timeforalongstory.tumblr.com/post/131321354810). (TW at the link: miscarriage.) Then you are again. What’s different about this time? Nothing and everything. Then all of a sudden, boom, here’s another human being. Good luck and try not to let the postpartum depression hit you in the ass on your way out.

For me _everything_ about infertility was sudden. It happened abruptly, without any of the good emotional leadup that I’d been trained to expect by movies or TV or books. Infertility didn’t conform to the dictates of good storytelling. It didn’t have foreshadowing. It didn’t have logic or sequence. It was arbitrary and capricious and out of nowhere. And if some of that came across in the fic, then I succeeded in giving some sense of what it was really like, and for that I’m not sorry.

PCOS, if you’re not familiar with it – and I had stated in the comments but not in the fic that this is the condition Aramis suffers from – is not actually, technically, infertility. As the nice specialist explained to me, it’s _sub_ fertility. Sometimes you ovulate correctly; sometimes your hormones don’t get high enough and you don’t. When you don’t, the ovum dies in place and leaves a scar. The more scars, the less likely you are to successfully ovulate in the future. It’s a progressive condition. And yet, just by sheer chance, many PCOS sufferers do naturally conceive – eventually the stars align. Aramis did once without help. The historical record as far back as Hippocrates contains mentions of PCOS-like symptoms. It’s genetic, and yet we keep passing it down.

Even in the modern day, sometimes it requires IVF to overcome, which would have prevented Aramis from ever having pups in the 1600s. But sometimes it just requires a little help in the form of a hormone boost. I am one of the lucky PCOS sufferers. Pop a pill every day, give myself a shot at the right time in the month and get down with the hubby: my toddler’s nineteen months old. Much like Aramis got my diagnosis, he also got my cure. Herbal remedies to boost hormone production were part of the pharmacopeia in the 17th century. Once Aramis gets the right drugs, he successfully conceives.

While I did talk about Aramis needing certain drugs, I clearly didn’t say that often enough or draw the link strongly enough between drugs + babies. The intention (which again I failed at) was to make it clear that the only thing keeping Aramis from babies was the Inquisition. He has successfully and correctly diagnosed himself by the time d’Artagnan comes to Paris. Unfortunately, the drugs he needs are tightly controlled by the Inquisition, because when used inappropriately they produce abnormally strong heats which make an effective means of torture. So he has to wait for the Inquisition to fall. Once it falls, he conceives. It only takes him two months – not coincidentally, the amount of time it took me. 

**TL;DR:** There’s a small but growing list of things I’d like to correct about _heirs_ in an hypothetical second draft/director’s cut of it, and I’ll add this to the pile. Thanks for pointing out the issues. I hope that this didn’t detract from your/anyone’s enjoyment of the fic too much.


	18. Traditional Omegan Dress

**Q:** Um, _hi? Treville mentions traditional Omegan dress at one point in heirs? What is that like?_

More of a tunic/overrobe and loose pants (trousers) combination. The idea of skirts (undivided legwear) originates in Betan cultures; throwbacks preferred clothing you could move in, since Omegas had active physical roles to play in throwback society. While I was writing _heirs_ I had the chance to see an incredible exhibition of áo dài, a traditional Vietnamese ensemble, and that’s what I think of now when I think of traditional Omegan dress. The fabrics in use in Israel/the Middle East/Western Russia would have been different, no doubt, as would the colors. But the style is so practical and gorgeous! It stuck with me :)

How long the tunic was, and how tightly fitted it and the pants were, would have been something that changed as fashions changed. So in one generation tunics were only hip-length, then in the next they were ankle-length. First they’d have been fitted for a while but then it became the fashion to be loose. And the traditional costume would have shifted, too, as throwback cultures and Betan cultures intermingled and Betan dress codes influenced throwback fashion (and vice versa). 

By the time of the Inquisition, traditional dress (of both cultures) was probably being supplanted by ‘modern’ or fusion fashions. Then the Inquisition sparked a desire among Betas to return to the ‘old ways’, which led to large dresses and elaborate coiffeurs for women, and tight suits of clothing for men. Those clothes were designed for Betan genders, not throwback ones, so they’re simultaneously a point of ego for Betas and a convenient way of hobbling and/or exposing throwbacks.

Then after the Inquisition, there would be a resurgance in traditional dress - though, given the loss of cultural knowledge, much of what will be said to be traditional dress would have been recreations or estimations. Families like the Richelieus will have preserved some specimens, and also preserved things like portraits and illustrations, so there will be an effort to do reconstruction. For a while throwback fashions will be all the rage. Then it will all settle back out again.


End file.
